T o p ro te c t th e p riva c y o f th e in d i v i d u a l s in v o l v e d , w e u s e i n i ti a l s i n p l a c e o f re a l n a m e s . See T EX
. 1 R. A PP
. P. 9. 8. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0060 7-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF A .J .R. , A CHILD
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 77t h Dist rict C ou rt o f V icto ria C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s On S eptember

23, 2008, the t ri al cour t hel d a n on-

jur y tr ial co ncer nin g the term inatio n of the pare nt-child relatio nship between Mary F. and A.J.R. On Octo ber 14, 1 200 8, th e trial court signed a w ritten ord er termin ating the pare nt-child relat ionsh ip. Mary F. a p p e a l s , a rg u i n g t h a t : ( 1 ) t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t d e mo n s t ra t e t h a t t h e S t ate made
re asona ble efforts to re tu rn A.J.R . or prov ide her

w it h a s er

v ic e pl an, a nd th ere i s n oS e e I n re D. J

. E. , N os. 13- 08- 00349
- C V, 13- 08- 00350
- C V, 200 8 W L 51 96608 , at * 11 ( T ex. 2 A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i D ec . 11 , 20 08 , no pe t

. ). 2 ev ide nce that the req uirement w as w aiv ed; ( 2) the tr ial co urt abuse d it s dis creti on in findi ng by cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that Ma ry F . had eng ag ed i n c onduc t or kn ow ing ly

pl aced A.J .R

. with perso ns w ho eng ag ed i n c onduc t w hic h endan g ered A. J.R .’ s p hy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g ; (3) the tr ial courterred byadmi tti ng tes ti monial ev ide nce re g ardin g Ma ry F .’ s a nd A. J.R .’ s medi cal and dr ug t e sts; (4 ) the t ri al cour t er re d i n findi ng thather
w om b, ovaries, and uterus a re dea dly w eap ons a nd in o rd ering that she be surgically ste ri li z ed; a nd ( 5) the tr ial cou rte rre d i n rely ing on tw o pr ior ter minat ion orders w hen term inatin g her pa rent-child relat ionsh ip w ith A.J.R. W e mo dif y the jud gmen t and af

f irm itas modi fied. I. B A CKGRO UND Mary F. is the mot her of

D.J.E., A.J.E., A.R.R., and R.R. D.J.E., A.J.E ., and R.R. tes ted p osi ti v e for dr ug s a t bi rt h. Addi ti onal ly , R. R. w as bor n w it h se vere m edi cal probl ems, inc lud ing ce re bral pal sy , w it hdraw al s , s t o ma c h c ra mp i n g , a nd a protei n di g est ion dis order , among other is sues . On Dec ember 21, 2006, subs eq uent to t he bi rt hs of D.J .E., A.J.E ., an d A.R.R., Mary F. p lead ed guilty t o “end angering [a] child” and “unlawful de liv ery of controlled substa nce in pe nalty g roup 1.” See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.041 (V er non Supp. 2008) ; T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481 .11 2 (Verno n 20 03). Base d on those plea s, the trial court ordered deferred adjudica tion fo r f iv e y ears and t e n ye a rs, re specti v ely

. On Apr il 8, 2008, the tr ial co urt t er minat ed M ar y F .’ s r ig hts to R. R. , and on May9, 200 8, th e trial co urt term inate d her rig hts to D.J.E., A .J.E. , and A .R.R. Th is Court uph eld th ose te rmina tions. 2M econi um i s t he “ f i r st st ool of newbor n i nf ant s. ” “ W hat i s M econi um Asp i rat i on , ” av ai labl e at 3 htt p:/ / w w w . k i ds gro w t h.co m / res ou rce s / art i c l ed etai l

. c fm ?i d= 92 7 (l as t vi s i t ed Ju l y 14 , 20 09 ). 3 On M ay 24, 2008, Ma ry

F . g av e bi rt h to h e r f ifth ch il d, A .J. R. M ar y H er mis , an inv est ig ator

w it h C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es, tes ti fied that she w as cal led on t o i nv est ig ate Ma ry F

. Ma ry F . c onfir med that she had ing est ed cocai ne at leasta w eek pr ior to g iv ing bir th t o A. J.R ., and A.J .R . t est ed pos it iv e for coc ain e at the time of her birth. H er mis note d that A.J .R .’ s u ri ne and meconi um tes ted p osi ti v e for coc ain e. Addi ti onal ly , Ma ry F. tes ted 3 posi ti v e for coc ain e tw ic e dur ing her preg nancy

w it h A. J.R . and recei v ed “ li mite d prenatal care.” The Tex as Dep artmen t o f F amil y Protecti v e Ser

v ic es (“ TDF PS” ) re mov ed A. J.R ., who ha d yet t o be di sc h a rge d f ro m th e ho sp it a l. Upo n rem o val f ro m Mary F. a n d di sc h a rge from the hospi tal , A.J. R. w as pla ced in foster ca re throug h the TDF PS. Subs eq uent to t he
re mov al, H er mis ar ra ng ed for Ma ry F . t o v is itA.J .R . atthe TDF PS’ s o ff ic e, w hic h w as the onl y ti me M ar

y F . and H er mis had face-t o- face co ntac t after the re mov al. M ar y F . di d not cont actH er mis ag ain

. Soni a C antu- Gonz ale s, a l eg al w or ker for Chi ld Protec ti v e Ser v ic es, als o tes ti fied. She w as the l eg al cas ew or ker assi g ned to A.J.R .’ s cas e. On June 30, 2008, t he TDF PS obtai ned a deter minat ion of ag g ra v ated ci rc umstan ces w hic h w aiv ed the req uirement t hat the TD FPS make re asona ble efforts to re tu rn A.J .R . t o M ar y F

. Can tu- Gonz ale s s tated that A.J .R . does not req uire anyspeci al medic al atte nti on, and that there w as no i ndi cat ion tha t Mary

F.’s positiv e test s for cocaine had cause d an y n e ga t ive e f fects to A.J.R. Al thoug h Mar

y F. w as inc arcerated the maj or ity of the t ime Can tu- Gonz ale zw as w or ki ng the c ase, M ar

y F . made one attempt to v is itw it h A.J.R . duri ng this time. M ar y F . i ndi cat ed4

to C antu- Gonz ale zthatsh e had to go to re habi li tati on as par t of her deferred adj udi cat ion for her pr ior g uil ty pl eas to de li v er

y of a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance and end ang er ment t o a c hil d. Can tu- Gonz ale zal so tes ti fied th at J oe R ., the p ur por ted father

of A.J .R ., had notbeen
e s t a b li s h e d t o b e t h e fa t h e r via a p a t e rn it y t e s t

. E ve n s o , t h e T DF P S wa s se e k in g t o h a ve him named a poss ess or y co nser v ator of A.J .R

. Joe R. had w eekl y v is it s w it h A. J.R

. Sta cie Marthiljohn i, a court appoin ted specia l advocate (“CASA”), state d tha t Mary F. did no t regularly atte nd rehabilitat ion. As the CASA casew orker assigned to Mary F.’s four ot her

ch il dren, M arthi lj ohni i nformed her thatR .R .’s m e d ic al probl ems w ere due to Mary F.’s dr ug use and that coc ain e us e dur ing preg nancy ca n “ sev erely

i mpact a c hil d.” Marthiljohn i testif ied th at te rmina tion o f Mary F.’s p aren t- c hi l d relationship w ith A.J.R. would be i n A. J.R .’ s b esti nterest

. At the conclu sion of the hea ring, the trial court orally term inate d t h e p a rent-child
re lat ion shi p betw een M ar y F . and A.J .R . It appoi nted the TD FPS as per manent mana g ing
cons er v ator and Joe R. as pos ses sor y cons er v ator

. Addi ti onal ly , the tr ial co urt orall y found tha t Mary

F.’s w om b, ut erus, an d ovaries, in the m ann er thatshe ha s a p p li e d t hem , are deadl y w eapons and orall y

ordered M ar

y F . t o be surg ic all y

st er il iz ed. On O cto ber 14, 2008, the t ri al cour

t ent ered a w ri tten order of ter minat ion

. This appeal ens ued. II. E VI D ENC E R E LA TI NG TO WA I VE R OF S ERVI C E P LA N A ND T E RMI NA TI ON O R D ER In her firs t is sue, M ar

y F . arg ues that: ( 1) the ev ide nce does not d emonst ra te t hat the S tate made reas onabl e ef forts to re tur n A. J.R . or prov ide her

w it h a s er

v ic e pl an; a nd (2 ) there is no ev ide nce that the req uirement in (1) w as w aiv ed. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . §§ 26 2.2 01, 262 .20 15 (Vernon 2008 ). In her f if th issue , Mary

F. asserts tha t the trial court5

er red i n rel y i ng o n two pr i or t er mi na ti on o rde rs w he n te r mi na ti ng h er p aren t- child
re lat ion shi p w it h A. J.R

. See i d. § 161 .00 1(1)(D), ( E) (Vernon 200 8). A . A pp licab le L aw Und er the Tex as Fami ly

C ode, the State can remov e an all eg edl y abus ed c hil d from his or her parent base d “ on i nformati on furni shed by anot her thathas been cor ro borated by perso n al know led g e of facts and al l of w hic h tak en to g ether w oul d l ead a person of
ordin ar y pr udenc e and caut ion to bel iev e tha t there is an immediat e dange r to t he phy si cal hea lth or safety of

the child. ” Id. § 2 62. 104 (a)(2) ( Verno n 20 08). How ever, the Sta te m ust hol d a ful l adv ersary h e a rin g w it hin fourt een day s o f remov ing the chi ld to de ter mine
w hether there i s j ustca use to k eep t he c hil d from hi s o r her parents

. Id. § 262 .20 1(a). The Stat e mustfil e a s er v ic e pl an w it hin forty -fiv e day s of b e in g appoi nted as temporar

y m anag ing conser

v ator of the re mov ed c hil d. Id. § 26 3.101 (V er non 200 8)

. The
serv ice plan shou ld specif y w hat me asure s the pare nts sho uld ta ke in ensu ring tha t the ir chi ld can be retur ned t o the m. Id. § 263 .10 2 (Verno n 200 8). T he State mu st also m ake
a reason a ble effort t o retur n the ch il d to her parents , unl ess there i s a su bst anti al ri sk of dang er to the c hil d i n doi ng so . Id. § 26 2.201( b) (3 ). One w ay the cour t may w aiv e the se duti es of the St ate i s to f ind that “ Ag g ra v ated Ci rc umstan ces ” ex is t: The cour t may w aiv e the req uirement of a ser v ic e plan an d the req uirement to mak e reas onabl e ef

forts to re tur n the chil d to a parent a nd may ac cel erate the t ri al sc hedul e to re sul t i n a fin al order for a ch il d under

th e c a re of the depar tment at an earl ier

date than prov ide d by

Subc hapter

D , C hapter

263, if the cour

t f in d s that the p arent h as subj ect ed th e c hil d to ag g ra v ated circumsta nces. Id. § 2 62. 201 5(a). Two w ays in w hich a cou rt may find und er subse ction (a) tha t the child6

has been s ubj ect ed to ag g ra v ated ci rc umstan ces by the parent a re i f: (5 ) the p arent’ s p arental r ig hts w it h re gar d to another ch il d hav e been involuntarilytermin ate d ba sed o n a f inding tha t the paren t’s cond uct v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 1 6 1

. 0 0 1 ( 1 ) ( D ) o r ( E ) [ o r i f]

. . . . (7 ) t h e p a re n t ’s p a re n t a l r ig h t s wit h re ga rd t o two o t h e r c h i ld re n h a ve been i nv olu ntar il y

ter minat ed. Id. § 26 2.2015( b) (5 ), ( 7)

. Fami ly co de s ect ion s 1 61.001( 1) (D ) and ( E) prov ide thatparental righ ts may be term inate d if

the pa rent “kno w in gl y p la c ed o r know ingly allow ed th e child to rem ain in condi ti ons or

su rroundi ng s w hic h endan g e r th e phy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of the child” or “engaged in cond uct or kno w ingly placed the child w ith perso ns w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich en dan gers the physica l o r e mo tiona l w ell-being of the child. ” Id. § 161 .00 1(1)(D), ( E). B. St and ard o f Rev iew Appel lat e c our

ts re v iew

ter minat ion of parental ri g hts ca ses under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Tur ner v. Lutz , 685 S.W .2d 356 , 359 (Te x . App .–A ustin 1 984 , no wr it). “To d eter mine w hether

a t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on, w e mustdec ide w hether the tr ial court act ed wi tho ut referen ce to an y g uiding rules or p ri n c ip le s ; i n oth er w ords, we must decid e w het her the a ct w as arbitrary or unrea sona ble.” In t h e In te r e s t o f D

. W. , 249 S. W .3d 6 2 5 , 6 4 7 (T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 2 0 0 8 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Downer v. Aquam ar

ine Ope rators , Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5)). M erely beca use a n ap pellat e cou rt maydecide a matter

differentl y

f ro m the ev ide nce present ed at tr ial does not cons ti tute an a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n b y t h e t r i a l court. Se e id. “ An abu se of dis creti on does not occ ur7

w here the trial court bases i ts decision s on con f licting evidence. ” Id. (cit in g In r e Bar ber , 982 S. W .2d 3 64, 3 65 ( Tex . 199 8) ( or ig . proceed ing ))

. “F urther more, an abuse of dis creti on does not o cc ur

as l ong as so me ev ide nce of subs tanti v e and probati v e c haract er ex is ts to
s up po rt th e tr i al c ou rt’ s de c i s i on .” In th e Inter est of M. N. G. , 1 4 7 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 (T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 20 0 4 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Butnar u v . F or d Motor C o. , 84 S.W .3d 1 98, 2 11 (Te x . 200 2)). C. Discus sion 1

. W aiv er of Ser vice Pl an In he r firs t is sue, Ma ry F. arg ues that the record i s c onfli cti ng reg ardin g w hether the
cour t ordered a ser

v ic e pl an or

w hether suc h a ser

v ic e pla n w as w aiv ed due to a findi ng of ag g ra v ated ci rc umstan ces . On J une 6, 2008, the TDF PS mov ed for a “ Hea ri ng and Determ inatio n of

Agg rav ate d Circumsta nces. ” In i ts mo tion, the T DFPS asserte d tha t Mary F. ’s r ig hts to four ot her ch il dren had been t er minat ed and mov ed th e c our t t o w aiv e the
re q uirement t hat TD FPS make re asona ble efforts to re tur n A.J .R

. On June 30, 2 008, the tr ial co urt hel d a h ear ing and si g ned a “Temporar y Order F oll ow ing Adv ersar

y He ar ing ,”
w hic h re q uired Ma ry F. to, “ pursuantto § 263. 106 Tex as Fami ly C ode [ si c],

. . . co mply

w it h each re q uirement set out i n [TD FPS ’s ] or ig ina l, or any amended, se rv ic e pl an dur ing the pendency

of [thi s] sui t.” N o s er

v ic e pl an for Ma ry

F . app ears i n the record. On J uly 2, 2008, based on t he TDF PS’ s J une 30, 20 0 8 “ Mo ti o n for H ear ing and Det er minat ion of Ag g ra v ated Ci rc umstan ces ,” the tr ial courtsig ned an “O rd er D eter mini ng Ag g ra v ated Ci rc umstan ces .” The t ri al cour t found t hat M ar

y F . prev iou sl y

had four c hil dren
w ho, a t eac h c hil d’s bi rt h, t est ed pos it iv e for dr ug s, and i t al so found that she tes tedA c c o rd i n g to th e r e c o rd o f th e te rm i n a ti o n h e a rin g , M a ry F . h a d fo u r c h i l d re n p rio r to g i v i n g b i rth to 4 A. J. R

. However , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat onl y t hr ee oft hose f ourchi l dr en t est ed p osi t i v e at bi r t h f or dr ugs. H er par ent
- chi l d r i ght s wer e t er m i nat ed as t o al l fo ur chi l dr en, as f ound by t he t r i al cour t i n t he p r esent case. M a ry F . d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e th e o rd e r o n th o s e g ro u n d s , th u s w e d o n o t c o n s i d e r th i s i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(f).

T he t wo or der s ar e appel l at e cause num ber s 13- 08- 00349
- C V and 13- 08- 00350
- C V. O n Decem ber 5 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , w e c o n s o l i d a te d th e tw o o rd e rs o n a p p e a l a n d a ff i rm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e tri a l c o u rt. I n re D

. J. E. , N os. 13- 08- 00349
- C V, 13- 08- 00350
- C V, 200 8 W L 51 9660 8, at * 1 n. 2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i D ec. 11, 20 08 , no pe t

. ). 8 posi ti v e fo r d ru gs a t the bir th of eac h of thos e c hil dren. H er parental r ig hts reg ardin g 4 thos e c hil dren had been t er minat ed unde r family co d e s e ct io n s 1 61.001( D) or ( E)

. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 16 1

. 0 0 1 ( D ) , ( E )

. Th e tr i a l co u rto rd e re d t h a t“ t h e re q u i re me n to f a
serv ice plan and the requ ir e m e n tt o m ake rea sona ble ef forts to retu rn the ch ild to [Mary F.] are w aived . . . .” Base d on the f indings in the reco rd, w e conclu de that th e trial court did no t abu se its discretion

. T he trial court mad e the requisite f indings und er section 262 .20 15 th at Mary F. ’s r ig hts to other

ch il dren had been i nv olu ntar il y ter minat ed under secti on 161. 001( 1) (E )
o r ( D ) a n d t h a t h e r r i g h t s t o tw o o t h e r c h i l d re n h a d b e e n t e r mi nated. Se e id. § 262.201 5( b) (5 ), ( 7)

. Beca use w e f ind that the tri al cour t’ s w aiv er

order w as pro per , w e do not a ddress M ar

y F .’ s a rg uments co ncer nin g w hether the ev ide nce demonst ra tes thatthe S t a t e m a d e re a s o n a b l e e f fo rt s t o re t u r n A

. J

. R

. o r t o p ro v i d e h e r

w i t h a s e r

v i c e p l a n . W e ov er ru le Ma ry

F .’ s first is sue. 2

. Prior Term inatio n Orders In he r fifth is sue, M ar

y F . c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s reli ance on tw o pr ior orders o f term inatio n in ma king i ts aggravated circumsta nces f inding and in ordering termina tion in the p re sentca se. Ma ry F . as ser ts that, bec ause the tw o pr ior orders w ere on appeal at 59

t h e time of the term inatio n orde r in the prese nt case, the trial court could not f ind, by a cl ear and conv inc ing sta ndard, that thes e ter minat ion s o cc ur re d. Ess enti all y , s he arg ues tha t th e t ri a l c o urt abu sed its discretio n in conclu ding thatthe pre v ious involunta ry ter minat ion s o f Mar

y F .’ s p arent- chi ld re lat ion shi p wit h her othe r chi ldren w ere s uff ic ien t
ev ide nce to s uppor

t a findi ng thatshe had pre v iou sl y endang ered her

ch il dren and v iol ated
secti ons 161.001 (1 )( D) or ( E) of the famil y

co de. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 161 .00 1(1)(D), ( E). In ad dress ing a s imi lar

i ss ue, t he F ort W orth C our t of Appea ls st ated, W e ho ld tha t, w hen a prior decree o f term in a t io n as to a not her child is proper ly admi tted int o ev ide nce, the [TDF PS] need no t reest abl is h tha t t he parent’ s c onduc t w it h resp ectto that chi ld w as in v iol ati on of secti ons 161 .00 1(1)(D) or (E). T he [ T DF P S ] n e ed o nly show that the Appe llant’s ri g hts w e re termi nated as to he r other ch il dren bas ed on findin gs that she v iolate d sectio ns (D) and (E). In re J.M.M. , 80 S. W .3d 2 32, 2 43 (T ex. App.– Fort W orth 20 02, pet. den ied) (emp hasis in origi nal), di

sappr oved on ot

her gr ounds , In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d 25 6 ( T e x. 2 0 0 2)

. In J.M.M. , the prede cessor agenc y t o T DF P S of fered a prior order of

termin ation w hich ter minat ed th e defendant’ s p arental r ig hts to a c hil d oth er than J. M. M. The F ort W orth Cou rtof Appeal s n oted that the p ri or ter minat ion order

tra ck ed th e l ang uag e of secti on 161.001 (1 )( D) and (E ) and w as admitted w it hout obj ect ion

. Id. ; see T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 16 1.0 01(1 )(D) , (E). In t he presentcase, tw o pri or orders of ter minat ion trac ked the lang uag e of se cti on 161.001 (1 )( D) and ( E) and w ere offered and admitted int o ev ide nce w it hout obj ect ion

. At the t i me of th e te r mi na ti on orde r i n th e pres en t c as e, th es e two orde rs w ere on a ppe al,
w hi c h s l i g ht l y

d i s ti ng ui s he s t his c as e from J.M.M. H ow ev er , s ect ion 109. 002( c) of the10

fam ily code state s: An app eal from a final order , w it h or w it hout a supersedea s bond, does not sus pend t he order

unl ess su spens ion i s o rd ered by the cour t render ing the order . The appel lat e court, on a proper sh ow ing , may

per mit the o rd er

to be suspe nde d, un less the o rder provides for the te rmina tion o f the pa rent-child re lat ion shi p in a sui t broug ht by the sta te or

a po li ti cal su bdi v is ion of the s tate per mitt ed by

l aw to br ing the sui t. T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 109.002 (c ) ( Ver non 2008). There i s n o order of sus pensi on i n the
re cord, an d bec ause the o rd ers t er minat e M ar y F .’ s p arent- chi ld re lat ion shi p w it h her othe r chi ldren , we canno t s uspen d the orders. Therefore, at t he ti me of the t er minat ion i n the present cas e, the tw o pr ior orders o f termi nati on w ere i n full effect

. See In re S. S.G. , 208 S.W .3d 1, 3 (Te x . App .–A ma rill o 20 06, pet. den ied) (notin g tha t once a judgme nt is
re v ersed, i t is nul li fied, “l eav ing it as if i t had nev er been re ndered ot her

than as to further righ ts of ap p e a l”) (c it in g Ex p a rt e Ruthe rford , 556 S.W .2d 8 53, 8 54 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–San Antoni o 1977, no w ri t) ( “I t is , therefore, cl ear that, w hil e the appeal w as pendi ng , t he order [dete rmi nin g co nser

v atorshi p] remaine d i n full effect

. . . .” ))

. W e c oncl ude, as did the For t W orth C our

t of Appea ls , t hat b ecaus e the tw o pr ior
orders w ere proper ly

admi tted int o ev ide nce and were i n f u ll effect atthe ti me of the term inatio n of

Mary F.’s parent-ch ild relationsh ip w ith A.J.R., T DFPS “nee d no t reesta blish that [M ar

y F .’ s] condu ct w it h respect t o [t he c hil dren] w as in v iol ati on of secti ons 161 .00 1(1)(D) or (E).” See In re J.M.M. , 80 S.W .3d a t 243 ; see als o T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 16 1.0 01(1 )(D) , (E). T hus, the evidence before the trial court that MaryF.’s parent-ch ild ri g hts to other

ch il dren w ere ter minat ed for viol a ting se cti ons 161.001 (1 )( D) or ( E) w as suffici ent, an d t h e t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by rely ing on t he two pr ior ter minat ion orders. See In re J.M.M. , 80 S.W .3d a t 243 ; see als o T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . §11

161.001 (1 )( D) , ( E)

. W e ov er ru le Ma ry F .’ s fifth i ss ue. III . S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In he r second issue, Mary F. a rg u e s thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in f inding by clear and convincing evidence th at MaryF. had en gaged in condu ct or knowi ngly pla ced A.J .R . w it h persons w ho eng ag ed i n c onduc t w hic h en d a n g ered th e phy si cal or emoti onal w ell -b ein g of A.J .R

. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 16 1.0 01(1 )(E). A . St and ard o f Rev iew In he ar ing s reg ardin g the ter minat ion of parenta l ri g hts , due proces s req uires that the S tate prov e its case for termi nati on byclear

and conv inc ing ev ide nce. In re J.F.C. , 96 S. W .3 d 25 6 , 2 6 3 (T e x. 20 0 2 ) (ci ti n g Santos ky v. Kr am er , 455 U.S. 745, 769 ( 1982) ; In re G. M. , 596 S.W .2d 8 46, 8 47 ( Tex . 198 0) ). “ This i nter mediat e s tandard fall s b etw een t he prep ond eran ce stan dard of ordinary ci v il proceed ings and the reason able dou bt sta nda rd of criminal proceed ings.” In re D.M.F. , 2 8 3 S .W .2 d at12 9 (cit in g In re G.M. , 596 S.W .2d 846, 847 ( Tex . 198 0) ; In r e K

. W. , 138 S.W .3d 4 20, 4 25 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 04, p et. deni ed) ). The c lea r and c onv inc ing st andard is defined as the “measure or deg re e of proof that w il l produce i n the min d of the tr ier of fact a firm bel ief or conv icti on as to the t ru th of the allegations sou ght to be e stab lished. ” T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 101 .00 7 (Verno n 20 08). T aking this elevated sta nda rd of rev iew into consid eratio n, an app ellate court
rev iew ing the legal suf f iciency o f

t h e e vid ence in a paren tal term inatio n case must deter mine w hether

a fact -fin der

co uld reason abl y

form a firm beli ef or

co nv icti on th at t he g ro unds for te rmi nati on w ere prov en. In r e J.F.C. , 9 6 S.W .3d at 265 -66. All ev iden ce shou ld be review ed “in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e judgme nt.” Id. at 266. This means12

tha t an ap pellat e cou rt mustassum e tha t the fact- f in d e r re s olved any disputed facts in favor of its find ing if a reaso nab le fact-f inde r could have don e so. An ap pellat e cou rt must als o di sreg ard al l evide n ce t h at a re asona ble fact- finder co uld hav e di sbel iev ed. Cit y o f Kel ler v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 27 ( Tex . 200 5) . “I f [an appel lat e c our t] deter mines that
no reason abl e factfinde r coul d form a fir m bel ief or co nv icti on th at t he matt er thatmustbe proven is true, the n tha t court must conclude tha t the ev iden ce is legally insuf f icient.” In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d a t 266

. Si mil ar ly , th e c l e a r

a n d c o n v i n c i n g s t a n d a rd o f re v i e w i n a p a re n t a l t e r mi n a t i on hear ing req uires a hi g her l e vel o f e vidence i n order

to be factua ll y

su ff ic ien t. See In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d 1 7, 25 ( Tex . 200 2 ). Und er the more common fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the
ev ide nce sta ndard, “ a c our t det er mines i f a findi ng is so a gai n st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce that iti s mani festl y unj ust , s hock s the c o n sc ien ce, or clearlydem onst rates bia s.” Id. at25 (cit in g Pool v. F or d Motor C o. , 715 S.W .2d 6 29, 6 35 (T e x. 198 6)). In contrast , “the ap pellat e stan dard for rev iew ing termina tion f indings is
w hether the ev ide nce is su ch that a fact- finder co uld reason abl y

form a firm bel ief or conviction ab outthe trut h of the St ate ’s allegations.” Id

. Theref o re, i n rev iew ing the factual su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce in a parental r ig hts term inatio n, “[w]e m ust de term ine w het her, on the en tire record, a fact-f inde r could
re asona bly

form a firm conv icti on or bel ief tha t t he parent viol ated a prov is ion of secti on 161 .00 1(1) and thatthe t e rm in a tion o f the pa rent’s pa renta l ri ghts w ould be in the best intere st of

the child. ” In re M.C.T. , 250 S.W .3d 161, 168 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 20 08, n o p e t. ) (ci ti n g In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d at 28)

. “I f, in li g ht of t he enti re re cord , t h e di sputed13

evidence th at a rea sona ble fact-f inde r could no t have credited in favor of th e f inding is so si g nific ant t hat a fact- finder co uld not hav e re a sonably formed a fir m bel ief or co nv icti on in the t ruth of

its f inding, the n the e v iden ce is fa ctua lly insuf f icient.” Id. (cit in g In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d 105 , 108 (Tex. 2006 )). B. A pp licab le L aw I n o rd e r fo r a co u rtt o t e rm in a t e t h e p a re n t -c h il d re la t io n s h ip , itm u s tf i n d two ess enti al el ements

. In r e J.L. , 1 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 , 8 4 (T e x. 2 0 0 5 ). Fi rs t , t h e p a re n tm u s th a ve commi tted o n e o f

the prohi bit ed acts li ste d i n s ect ion 161. 001( 1) of the famil y co de. Id. (ci ti n g T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 161 .00 1(1)). Seco nd, it must be in the child’s be st interest to t er m inate t he parental r ig hts

. Id. (cit in g T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 161.001 (2 ))

. “B oth elem ent s mustbe esta blished ; term inatio n ma y not be ba s e d s o le ly o n the best inte rest of th e c hi l d as de te r mi ne d by th e trier of fact.” In re D.M.F. , 2 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 0 9 , pe t. f ile d ) (o p . o n reh ’g) (ci ti n g Tex. Dep’ t of Human Servs. v. Boyd , 727 S.W .2d 531 , 533 (Tex. 1987 )). A parent v iol ates secti on 161. 001( 1) w hen t he parent h as “e ng ag ed i n c onduc t or know ing ly

pl aced the c hil d w it h persons w ho eng ag ed i n c o n d u ct w hic h endan g ers t he physical or em otion al w ell-being of the child. . . .” T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 161 .00 1(1)(E). C. Discus sion Ma ry F . c ontends thatthe ev ide nc e p re sent ed atthe ter minat ion hear ing w as nei ther leg all y nor fact ual ly

suff ic ien t to show , byclear and conv inc ing ev ide nce, thatsh e v iol ated
secti on 16 1 .0 0 1 (1 )( E) of the famil y co de by eng ag ing i n c onduc t w hic h endan g ered th e physic a l o r e mo tiona l w ell-being of A.J.R. “Under subse ction (E), the relev antinquiry is14

w hether ev ide nce ex is ts thatthe endang er ment of the chi ld’ s p hy si cal w ell -b ein g w as the direct result of

t h e p aren t’s cond uct, inclu ding acts, om issions, or failures to a ct.” In re J.T .G. , 1 2 1 S. W .3 d 11 7 , 1 2 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 20 0 3 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g In re R.D. , 955 S.W .2d 3 64, 3 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1997, pet. deni ed) ; Dup re e v . T e x. D e p ’ t of Prote ctive & Regu latory Se rvs. , 907 S.W .2d 81, 83-84 ( T ex. App.– Dallas 199 5, no w rit))

. A mothe r’ s d ru g us e dur ing preg nancy m ay be suffici ent ev ide nce of endang er ment t o her chi ld. Id . at125. Mary F. argues tha t the re w as not suf f icient ev iden ce to suppo rt th e State ’s
accusa tions o f

her drug use during her pregnan cy w ith A.J.R. Hermis test if ied th at A.J. R. tes ted p osi ti v e at bir

th for cocai ne in both her uri ne and meconi um. Her mis al so sta ted t hat Mary F. tested positive fo r cocaine twice during her pregnancy w ith A.J.R. Ma ry F . al so arg ues that ev en i f both s he a n d A .J .R . teste d pos it iv e for coc ain e dur ing her

preg nancy

and at bi rt h, t his w a s n o t su f fici ent e v ide nce to prov e tha t s he end angered A.J.R.’s w ell-being beca use A. J.R. w as no t physically h a rm e d b y Mary

F.’s dr ug us e. W h ile “ ‘en dang er ’ means more than a threat o f metaphy si cal i nju ry or the poss ibl e i ll effect s o f a les s- than- ide al family env ironment, iti s n ot ne ces sar y thatthe cond uct be directed at the child or tha t the child actu ally suf fers injury .” Boyd , 727 S.W .2d
a t5 3 3

. In s t e a d , o n e is “e n d a n ge re d ” wh e n e xp o s e d t o lo s s o r i n ju ry o r p la c e d in je o p a rd y. Id. Al t h o u gh A

. J

. R. d id n o tsu f fe r a n y a c t u a l p h ys ic a l h a r m , t h e e vid e n c e cl e a rl y sh o ws that Ma ry

F . ex posed A.J .R . t o l oss or in ju ry a n d j eopardiz ed her w ell -b ein g w hen s he abuse d co c a i n e d u r i n g h e r p re g n a n c y

w i t h A

. J

. R

. T h e re fo re , M a r y F

. v i o l a t e d S e c t i on 1 6 1 .0 0 1 (1 )(E ) by e n d a n ger in g A. J. R. ’s p h ysica l o r em o ti o n a l well- b e in g.15

Ha vin g vi e we d a ll o f

t h e e vid e n c e in t h e li gh tm o s tf a v o ra b le t o t h e ju d gm e n t , we conc lud e tha t a fact- finder co uld hav e reason abl y formed a fir m bel ief or con vict io n tha t Mary F. “engaged in condu ct or knowi ngly plac e d [ A

. J

. R. ] w ith pe rsons w ho e ngaged in cond uct w hich enda ngers the physical or em otion al w ell-being of [A.J.R.] . . . .” See T EX . F AM .C OD E A NN . § 161. 001( 1) (E ); In re J.F.C. , 96 S.W .3d at 265- 66. Addi ti onal ly , v iew ing the e nti re record, w e c oncl ude t hat a reason able f a ct -f in d e r coul d form a firm bel ief or
conv icti on that Mar

y F . v iol ated family

co de s ect ion 161. 001( 1) (E ). See In re M.C.T. , 250 S.W .3d at1 6 8. Beca use, base d on a clear and convincing stan dard , the ev iden ce is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he tr ial court ’s determi nati on that M ar y F . v iol ated section 161 .00 1(1)(E), the trial court did notabu se its discretion in so f inding. W e overrule Ma ry F .’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. T ES TI M ONY OF M I C H ELLE H E R M IS In he r thi rd i ss ue, M ar

y F. arg ues that the tr ial cour t c ommitt ed er ro r by

“ admitti ng tes ti monial ev ide nce of [Ma ry F .’ s] or [A. J.R .’s] m e d ica l and dr ug tes t resul ts at bi rt h beca use th e spo nsoring w itness, Michelle Herm is, w as no t qualif ied to g iv e an ex pert opi nio n on the posi ti v e or neg ati v e re sul ts of t he tes ti ng or the len g th of ti me the coc ain e had bee n in [Mary

F.’s] sy stem .” D uring direct ex am inatio n, Herm is testif ied th at MaryF. had indicate d tha t she “ha d ingested co caine a t least a w eek prior t o giv ing birth” to A. J.R. Addi ti onal ly , H er mis st ated that A.J .R . t est ed pos it iv e for coc ain e at bir th. W hil e bei ng cross ex amined by A.J .R .’ s repre s e n t a t i v e , H e r mi s a g a i n a c k n o w l e d g ed that A.J .R . t est ed pos it iv e for cocai ne both in her uri ne and meconi um. H er mis su g g est ed that a pos it iv e tes t for coc ain e in the mecon ium ind ic ates a l ong -t er m use w hil e the baby16

is in ute roand that suc h a re sul t als o establ is hes that coc ain e w as used more than three ti mes. W hil e M ar

y F . did not object to anyof the foreg oin g tes ti mony , s he di d obj ectto the next q uest ion, which w as, “[T he co caine is] kin d o f built up in th e ba by, i n the bab y ’s sy st e m ? ” M ar

y F . obj ect ed on g ro unds that Her mis w as tes ti fyi ng bey ond her qualif ication s. Th e S t ate note s thatthe trial court overruled th e objection , and Hermis cont inu ed w it h her

di sc uss ion of Ma ry

F .’ s c ocai ne us e and other i ss ues conc er nin g A

. J

. R. ’s sa fe t y.

“I t i s a w ell -s ettl ed pr inc ipl e that to preser v e er ro r for rev iew

on a ppeal , a defendant
mu st obje ct time ly , specif ically , and receive an adverse ruling at trial.” Jay nes v. State , 216 S. W .3 d 83 9 , 8 5 0 ( T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 6 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1(a); Tur ner v. Sta te , 805 S.W .2d 4 23, 4 31 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1991) ). “A tri al cour

t’ s e rroneous admis si on of

e vide n ce w il l not req uire rev ersal w hen ot her su ch ev ide nce w as re cei v ed
w ithou t obje ction, eithe r before or af ter the com plaine d-of

ruling.” Id. (ci ti n g Leday v. Sta te , 98 3 S. W .2 d 71 3, 7 18 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 19 98 ) )

. W e c on c l ud e th at , be c au s e ev i de nce conce rning the prese nce o f co caine in A .J.R.’s urine and meco nium and conce rning M ary F. ’s dr ug use w as “recei v ed w it hout obje cti on” pri or to Ma ry F.’ s objecti on, ev en if the t ri al court erred in adm itting the evidence, w hich w e do not de cide, su ch error w ould not require
re v ersal

. Id. M ar

y F .’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

V. S URG I CA L S TE RI LI ZA TI ON In he r fourth is sue, M ar

y F. asser ts thatthe tr ial courter re d i n findi ng thather w omb,T he t r i al cour t ’ s wr i t t en t er m i nat i on o r derdoe s not m ent i on st er i l i z at i on; t he t r i al j udge or al l y or der ed 6 th e s u r g e r y. T h e w r itt e n te r m in a tio n o r d e r d o e s , h o w e v e r , c o n ta in th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s f in d in g th a t M a r y F .’s
“ ut er us an d ov ar i es i n t hei r m annerand use ar e deadl y weapon s. ” ( Em phasi s om i t t ed)

. T he St at e do es no t d i s p u te th a t th e tria l c o u rt o ra l l y o rd e re d th e s u rg e ry. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1( g) ( “ [ T ] he cour t wi l l accept as t rue t he fac t s stat ed un l es s an othe r part y co ntr ad i c t s t he m . ”)

. 17 ov ar ies , and uter us are deadl y w eapons and in order ing thatsh e be s urg ic all y st er il iz ed. 6 The Stat e ag re es. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1.07( a) (1 7) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ( defini ng “dea dly w eap on”). How ever, the Sta te disagrees w ith Mary F.’s “ef fort to raise this mistake by the [tr ial co urt] to a lev el of an er ro r in the t er minat ion of parental r ig hts .” Beca use t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d i n o rd e r i n g t h a t M a r y F . be surgically s t e ri lized an d in f inding tha t her ovaries, w om b, an d ute rus w ere de adly
w eapons , w e del ete that por ti on of the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er req uir ing the surg ic al ste ri li z ati on and t he dead ly

w eapon findi ng . See Ma tter of C. P. , 9 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 1 , 1 5 2 (T e x. A pp. –Au stin 19 96, w rit denied ) ( v acat ing conv iction on certain of fense s upo n Sta te’s
conce ssion th at th ose o f fense s w ere lesser includ ed o f fense s of

othe r of fense s on w hich defendant w as conv icted) ; s ee a lso Ran dlev. Sta te , N o . 0 5
- 0 7
- 0 0 8 4 9
- C R , 2 0 0 8 WL 933424, at *1 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as Apr . 08, 2008, no p et.) ( v acat in g a t ri al cour t’ s o rd er becau se the S tate conc eded er ro r)

. Beca use “[ o]nl y one sta tutor

y predi cat e findi ng under [s] ect ion 161. 001 i s n eces sar y to suppo rt a jud g ment of t er minat ion w hen there is al so a f inding tha t term inatio n is in the be st interestof the childre n,” In r

e R .S. , 252 S.W .3d 5 50, 553 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex a rka n a 2 0 0 8 , no pet.) , w e ag re e w it h the Sta te t hat M ar y F . c annot
ra is e thi s e rror

to ov erco m e t h e t e rminati on order

. In ad dit ion to the d eadl y w eapon f inding, the trial court foun d tha t term inatio n is in A.J.R.’s best inte rest a n d t h a tMary F.
v iol ated secti ons 161.001 (E ) and 161 .001( M)

. See T EX . F A M I LY C OD E A NN . §§ 16 1.0 01(E),18

(M ). Therefore, w e find that the t ri al cour t di d noter r in ter minat ing M ar y F .’ s p arental rig hts even if it did err by f inding tha t her ovaries, w om b an d ute rus w ere de adly w eap ons. W e s ust ain i n par

t and ov er ru le in par

t M ar y F .’ s four th i ss ue. VI. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led M ar

y F .’ s first, se cond, thi rd and f if th i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of t he tr ial co urt as to thos e i ss ues. R eg ardin g M ar y F .’ s four th i ss ue, w e del ete that por ti on of the tr ial cour

t’ s order re q uir ing her

su rg ic al ste ri li z ati on and the fin din g that her ov aries, uterus, and w om b are de adly w eap ons, and mod if y the jud gmen t accordin gly
w it hout thes e prov is ion s. W e aff ir m the re mainde r of the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.